DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The present application is being examined under the claims filed on 9/8/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, and 15 are amended. Claims 3, 6-8, 11, 14, and 16-17 are canceled. Claims 18-28 have been added.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
For elected Invention I, claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, 12-13, 15, and 18-21 are directed to a system/method having multiboot arrangements, i.e. selecting an operating system to be loaded, classified in G06F9/441. However, Invention II, claims 22-28 are directed to a method for operating system running processes after booting, including query translation, classified in G06F16/2452, and interconnections or communication control functionality being redundant (e.g. re-establishing connection after disconnection/ interruption), classified in G06F11/2002.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 22-28 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/8/2025 with regards to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of Bohdan and Caceres fail to teach the newly added limitation “the mobile computing device determines or detects a power state of the stationary computing device.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, Bohdan teaches the “the mobile computing device determines or detects a power state of the stationary computing device” (Bohdan par. 50 teaches communications module 213 works to maintain the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N to the one or more user devices 101-1 to 101-N, where communications module 213 also manages and optimizes power consumption related to one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N. For example, communications module 213 adjusts the transmission powers used for the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N based on distances from user devices such as user device 101-1; furthermore, par. 76 teaches when a connection is established with a user device, device interoperability system 200 gives the connected user device the ability to boot OS 214 which is stored in the storage of user device 101-1, i.e. boot OS 214 on user device 101-2).
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claim 13 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments allege that the newly added limitations are not taught by the prior art of record. It should be noted that a prior art reference to Rajagopal in combination with Bohdan and Caceres teaches the newly added limitations as shown in the rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohdan (US 2018/0121211 A1) in view of Cáceres “Reincarnating PCs with Portable SoulPads” [In IDS].
Regarding Claim 1, Bohdan discloses a system for a mobile computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-1; par. 75, user device 101-1 is a mobile smartphone) and a second computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-2 [see par. 38, device may be stationary device listed in par. 19]; Bohdan par. 75, OS runs on device 101-2) associated with a user (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user 100) to interwork (Bohdan FIG. 2A, device interoperability system working in conjunction with the user devices [also see par. 8 and 44]; and par. 75, example use when OS 214 runs on user device 101-2 which is connected to user device 101-1, the hardware components of user device 101-1 are used by the OS), wherein:
the mobile computing device comprises a device interoperability system (Bohdan FIG. 2D, user device 101-1 [i.e., the mobile computing device] contains integrated device interoperability system 200 [also see par. 11 and 71]), further wherein the device interoperability system comprises: a communications module (Bohdan FIG. 2B [depicting device interoperability system, see par. 45], communications module 213), further wherein: a first connection is established between the second computing device and the communications module (Bohdan par. 50, communications module 213 participates in the establishment of the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N, where communications module 213 also works to maintain the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N to the one or more user devices 101-1 to 101-N),
storage coupled to said communications module (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, storage 212 is coupled to communications module 213), further wherein the storage stores:
an operating system (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, operating system 214),
one or more programs (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, programs and data 216), and
data associated with the user (Bohdan FIG. 2B and par. 52, programs and data 216; par. 52, data and programs are "user documents and data"), and
one or more processors to support said device interoperability system (Bohdan par. 46, one or more processors 215 perform the functions of supporting the other elements of device interoperability system 200);
the mobile computing device determines or detects a power state of the stationary computing device (Bohdan par. 50 teaches communications module 213 works to maintain the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N to the one or more user devices 101-1 to 101-N, where communications module 213 also manages and optimizes power consumption related to one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N. For example, communications module 213 adjusts the transmission powers used for the one or more connections 201-1 to 201-N based on distances from user devices such as user device 101-1; furthermore, par. 76 teaches when a connection is established with a user device, device interoperability system 200 gives the connected user device the ability to boot OS 214 which is stored in the storage of user device 101-1, i.e. boot OS 214 on user device 101-2);
the operating system is booted by the second computing device via the first connection (Bohdan par. 180, after establishing connection 201-2 [i.e., first connection], OS 214 is shut down on user device 101-1 [i.e., mobile device], then booted on user device 101-2 [i.e., second device]; also see par. 75, example use when OS 214 runs on user device 101-2 which is connected to user device 101-1; see also par. 76 above),
the operating system runs on the stationary computing device (Bohdan par. 180, OS 214 is booted on device 101-2 [i.e., stationary device]; see also par. 76 & 180 above), and
the operating system uses one or more processing capabilities of the second computing device for operation (Bohdan par. 53, OS 214 and installed applications are run on the user device which device interoperability system 200 is connected to, and uses the processing capabilities of this user device for its operation; and Bohdan par. 181, devices runs own instance of OS 214 in parallel with each other; see also par. 76 above).
Bohdan does note that user device 101-1 may be a mobile device and user device 101-2 may be a stationary device (see par. 38, devices may be device types listed in par. 19, which include mobile and stationary devices), but does not explicitly teach that user device 101-2 is a stationary device operating with the mobile device.
In the analogous art of implementing a user profile across multiple devices, Cáceres teaches:
a mobile computing device (Cáceres pg. 1 col 2 par. under figure 1, SoulPad is a portable device carrying the software stack shown in Figure 1) that interfaces with a stationary computing device (Cáceres pg. 1 col 1 abstract, a computing device interfaces with SoulPad [also see pg. 2, col 1, par. 1-2, SoulPad interfaces with x86 based personal computers])
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan and Cáceres before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan’s system of computing devices with Cáceres’s use of a mobile device and a stationary device, the motivation being to allow the user to resume sessions on desktop computers without needing to carry a large device or docking station to maintain their session data and preferences (Cáceres pg. 1, col 1, introduction section).
Regarding Claim 2, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan discloses wherein the first connection is a Thunderbolt or a Universal Serial Bus (USB) connection (Bohdan par. 57 teaches the at least one direct wired connection includes, for example, a USB connection, where at least one of the connections 201-1 to 201-N are direct wired).
Regarding Claim 4, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan further teaches wherein prior to the booting of the operating system: the mobile computing device is turned on, and either one or more options are presented to the user to select a mode of operation (Bohdan par. 88, user device 101-1 is switched on [i.e., mobile computing device], and user device 101-1 presents the user with the option of setting up for interoperability system mode [i.e., mode of operation]), or a mode of operation is selected based on a determination of the establishment of the first connection.
Regarding Claim 5, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 4. Bohdan further teaches wherein the presenting of the one or more options comprises at least one of: a timer-based process (Bohdan par. 89, user accepts the option of setting up for interoperability system mode within a predetermined time period [a timer would be needed to monitor the time that has passed]), or displaying a GUI with the one or more options.
Regarding Claim 9, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan further discloses wherein prior to the booting of the operating system by the stationary computing device: the mobile computing device enters a device interoperability system host mode (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 301, device 101-1 [i.e., mobile device] is turned on and mode is selected before boot occurs at step 308).
Bohdan does not explicitly disclose the stationary computing device is turned on prior to the booting of the operating system by the stationary computing device. Bohdan generally discusses that connection 201-1 between device interoperability system 200 and user device 101-1 is established before the device 101-1 OS loads (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 308 and par. 53), and the device is already on at this time (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 301). In Bohdan, devices 101-N comprise the devices associated with user (Bohdan par. 38) and any may contain the device interoperability system (Bohdan par. 72). The connection to the stationary computing device 101-N would be established in the pre-boot environment, as is the case disclosed by device 101-1.
Furthermore, Cáceres teaches that when a SoulPad is booting on an EnviroPC, the autoconfiguring Host OS discovers the hardware characteristics and I/O devices of the EnviroPC, and configures itself to the hardware present by installing appropriate driver modules. Auto-configuration is a requirement for this layer since the SoulPad has to boot on an EnviroPC that it may not have seen before (Cáceres pg. 3, col 1, first full par.). In order to boot, a connection between the SoulPad and EnviroPC is established, meaning both devices are on and working in an interoperable mode.
Regarding Claim 10, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 9. Bohdan in view of Cáceres further discloses wherein the entering of the device interoperability system host mode comprises switching from a either sleep state or a soft off state to a working state (Cáceres pg. 7, col 2, par. 2, SoulPad will suspend/resume, opposed to shutdown/boot; also Bohdan FIG. 3A, at step 301 the device is switched on [implying being shut down prior to this step]; and step 303 user accepts booting in interoperability mode).
Regarding Claim 12, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the system of claim 1. Bohdan in view of Cáceres further teach:
wherein the mobile computing device is in a device interoperability system host mode (Cáceres pg. 3 col 1, par above Fig. 2, the user can suspend his session [therefore, device is in device interoperability mode, running a session started via SoulPad]);
based on an action performed by the user which is indicative of user intention to shut down the operating system (Cáceres pg. 3 col 1, par above Fig. 2, the user can suspend his session, then shut down the VMM layer and the Host OS),
based on a sent signal (Bohdan par. 181-182, embodiment communications module 213 is able to establish and simultaneously maintain connections using OS 214, which are used to share information for maintaining devices 101-N (also see par. 183)), the mobile computing device performs one of:
switching to a first mode of operation from the device interoperability system host mode (Bohdan par. 180, OS 214 operation on user device 101-1 is first paused [i.e., switching mode of operation], then OS 214 is either booted or resumed on user device 101-2),
remaining in the device interoperability system host mode, or
turning off (Bohdan par. 180, OS 214 must be shut down on user device 101-1, then booted on user device 101-2).
Bohdan in view of Cáceres does not explicitly teach:
a shutdown dialog is presented with one or more options for the user to select;
the stationary computing device sends a signal to the mobile computing device based on the selection of the one or more options presented in the shutdown dialog;
Bohdan generally discloses that a graphical user interface (GUI) is generated on user device 101-1 to enable the user to interact and interface with user device 101-1 including OS 214 (Bohdan par. 171). Performing a shutdown would constitute interacting and interfacing with user device 101-1. Bohdan presents the concepts of either suspending or shutting down the OS (Bohdan par. 180).
Cáceres also notes the user can suspend his session, then shut down the VMM layer and the Host OS, and walk away with his SoulPad (Cáceres pg. 3 col 1, par above Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to use the GUI of Boden to present the shutdown options, then send a signal to complete the option selected by the user.
Claims 13, 15, and 18-21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohdan in view of Cáceres and Rajagopal et al. (US 2021/0124594 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Bohdan discloses a method for a mobile computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-1 [see par. 38, device may be mobile device listed in par. 19]) and a stationary computing device (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user device 101-2 [see par. 38, device may be stationary device listed in par. 19]) associated with a user (Bohdan FIG. 2A, user 100) to interwork (Bohdan FIG. 2A, device interoperability system working in conjunction with the user devices [also see par. 8 and 44]),
initiating, by the mobile computing device, switching the stationary computing device into interoperability mode (see Bohdan par. 89 teaches in step 303 user accepts the option of setting up for interoperability system mode for the user device, and Fig. 3A illustrates OS 214 boots on user device (308) and works in device interoperability system mode (309), where par. 75-76 & 180, as explained above in claim 1, teach OS 214 is booted on user device 101-2).
The remaining clauses in claim 13, except for the limitation further wherein: the initiating is based on the mobile computing device determining a power state of the stationary computing device, are similar to claim 1 and thus rejected under the same rationale.
Bohdan in view of Carceres does not appear to explicitly teach:
further wherein: the initiating is based on the mobile computing device determining a power state of the stationary computing device.
In the analogous art of managing power states of a device, Rajagopal teaches:
changing system behavior based on the power state (Rajagopal Claims 3-4 and par. 18, select processor to boot using based on power and performance goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan, Carceres, and Rajagopal before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan and Carceres’ system with power management for the connections with Rajagopal’s device power management, the motivation being to optimize the power usage of the components in the system (Rajagopal par. 10-11 and 15).
Regarding Claim 15, Bohdan in view of Cáceres and Rajagopal teaches the method of claim 13. Bohdan further teaches wherein the initiating is based on a determination of a state of the first connection between the mobile computing device and the stationary computing device (Bohdan FIG. 3A step 310 and par. 94, user device tries to establish a connection with device interoperability system 200 [the state of the connection is used to attempt to establish the connection]).
Regarding Claim 18, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the method of claim 1.
Bohdan in view of Carceres does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the booting of the operating system is based on the mobile computing device detecting or determining the power state.
In the analogous art of managing power states of a device, Rajagopal teaches:
changing system behavior based on the power state (Rajagopal Claims 3-4 and par. 18, select processor to boot using based on power and performance goals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bohdan, Carceres, and Rajagopal before them, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Bohdan and Carceres’ system with power management for the connections with Rajagopal’s device power management, the motivation being to optimize the power usage of the components in the system (Rajagopal par. 10-11 and 15).
Regarding Claim 19, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the method of claim 1. Bohdan does not explicitly teach wherein based on the detecting or determining, the mobile computing device performs one of: changing a power state of the mobile computing device, or changing a power state of the stationary device (Rajagopal Claims 3-4 and par. 18, select processor to boot using based on power and performance goals).
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites similar limitation as corresponding claim 19 and is rejected for similar reasons as claim 19 using similar teachings and rationale.
Regarding Claim 21, Bohdan in view of Cáceres teaches the method of claim 13. Bohdan also teaches wherein the initiating comprises at least one of: establishing the first connection, switching the stationary computing device from a first power state to a second power state, sending an indication to the user to switch the stationary computing device from the first power state to the second power state, turning on the stationary computing device, or sending an indication to the user to restart the stationary computing device (Bohdan Fig. 3A illustrates OS 214 boots on user device (308) and works in device interoperability system mode (309), where par. 75-76 & 180, as explained above in claim 1, teach OS 214 is booted on user device 101-2; par. 91 also teach connection 201-1 is established; step 310 and par. 94 also teach user device tries to establish a connection with device interoperability system 200 [the state of the connection is used to attempt to establish the connection]; furthermore, Cáceres pg. 4, col 2, first section also teaches users may initiate an operation by powering up the new PC [i.e., stationary device] so that it boots from the SoulPad [i.e., mobile device], where the PC resumes the Guest OS session).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW JUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3779. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-5:30pm ET (Mon-Fri).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Wiley can be reached on 571-272-4150. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW J JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights